I read through the discussion at
[link]
and thought that this really is a most exciting development. It's particularly encouraging that there are still a good number of G&T* folks in the RISC OS areana.
I refuse to believe that RISCOS Ltd would stop this happening - I know there is a good dialogue between RISCOS Ltd and ROOL - I'm confident they can work something out. The big challenge must be the port itself - Good luck with the technicalities guys - it's way beyond what I could cope with.

It is important that RISC OS be running on the fastest available native hardware and this development is a step in the right direction.

Martin>RISC OS Limited *don't* have anything to do with this. Any negative interference from them would only damage their standing in the RISC OS community and the project would still continue anyway. On that basis I don't believe they will.

It's important for this project to succeed, as RISC OS can only claim to be a live platform if it runs natively on up-to-date hardware. Fortunately it seems to be going well. As to RISC OS Ltd, surely this is only a continuation of the de facto native hardware vs. emulation competition we had with Iyonix vs. VRPC, and as such is to be welcomed: a faster-running native hardware solution should put pressure on VRPC to improve their offering. Furthermore, AMS is right: any attempt to frustrate the A8 port would surely incur the wrath of a large section of the active community.

AW>I suspect we'll see an RO 5.14 release from Castle *first* (after all the Pandora port is a work in progress and therefore something for the future, while the RO5.14 update is just awaiting testing - presumably by Castle - before it becomes available to general users for to "flash" onto their machines).

Of course, when it is, there'll still a big whole where the reason for using it should be. I don't ignore VirtualAcorn because of the speed, but because it hasn't got basic modern functionality at the moment.

Hopefully the interest created by a new machine and an open sourced OS will lure new developers, but I do think its worth reminding ourselves that being released on modern hardware will not make Riscos a viable system---only *enable the creation* of a viable system.

For example, if there is a very low cost machine available, I will switch my efforts back from initially developing the braille cell display exclusevely for Windows to developing it for Riscos also, as originally planned.

I think speed and functionality are interrelated: wasn't development of Cino discontinued when it became apparent that the Iyonix was not capable of the required video playback frame rate? If that capability had been present, much of the lacking multimedia capability could have been addressed.

For Cino, wasn't it more lack of documentation of the graphics card? This meant that all the work had to be done by the processor. DVD playes were then available for £30 (and falling). The amount of work needed to get the required performance would never get paid for by the number of potential sales at that sort of price.

(Note, Kinoamp can manage half the required frame rate in optimum circumstances. And I don't think the developer even has an Iyonix to test it on.)

Jess: re Cino, you are quite correct - I had forgotten the other factors you mention. I think my basic point, that hardware capability and application development are mutually dependent, is still valid though.
Mac9: indeed - let's hope!